Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habari (3rd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 March 26.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. No serious reason offered for nominating this article for deletion, nor any obvious reason to delete noticed after reading the article. -- llywrch (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Habari

I don't like it. Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yr citing an argument from the essay "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". I'm embarassed for ya... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep unless the nominator wants to give a reason for deleting it. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Strange, the nom also nominated Habari for featured article status last year. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based what was said on his talk page, I think that nomination was not serious, but was instead part of a series of pointy actions he took when the previous AfD ended as a keep. Calathan (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep No reason given for deletion, and I don't think anything has changed since the last time it was nominated for deletion. Calathan (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- you can't tell whether or not consensus has changed unless you periodically take the consensus. based on comments by the closing admin of the last afd [1] and another ex admin [2] it would appear that the consensus has potentially changed hence this attempt to re assess the consensus Misterdiscreet (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.